Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

In reference to the recent sentencing of drug kingpin Ed Rosenthal, it is obvious that he is immune to the Supreme Court ruling that marijuana has not been accepted for medical use in the United States, and that it is not a legal defense. Justice did not prevail; it completely failed leaving all of us who support sound drug policy outraged. For the sake of our children's future, we need answers now! How could Ed Rosenthal, who should have received a mandatory minimum of 5 years, get a downward departure of sentencing guidelines to one day, which he never served? How could a downward departure be considered because Judge Charles Breyer felt Rosenthal genuinely believed what he was doing was not against the law? Perhaps Judge Breyer needs to read Mr. Rosenthal's book, Marijuana: The Law and You, a Guide to Minimizing Legal Consequences. It must only be a mere coincidence that this book is designed, "to keep you out or get you out of trouble." The back cover of his book claims that it has "saved people thousands of years of jail time."

Judge Charles Breyer has done us a grave injustice by his contempt for federal guidelines and abuse of power, an injustice that will sacrifice the health and well being of our children, and for that I will not stand. Instead of just say "no" Mr. Breyer reinforces just say "go." It seems as though he does not take the law seriously, like a game, don't go directly to jail, do pass go and do collect 200 children to demoralize. This travesty should be investigated immediately. Criminals do not need another loophole, nor do our children need to be exposed to another drug dealer flaunting federal law.

The only reason I posted this letter was to show that total ignorance still gets publicity. Quite frankly this letter upsets me so much I am considering writing a rebuttal to the editor. It is obviously apparent that the person who wrote this hasn't kept up on what exactly has happened in this matter, or just skipped over the relevant parts due to all of the media or government brainwashing they have endured.

Quote: How could Ed Rosenthal, who should have received a mandatory minimum of 5 years, get a downward departure of sentencing guidelines to one day, which he never served?

The fact is Ed Rosenthal was credited for time served because after his arrest he spent more than one day in jail prior to his bail hearing.

Quote:How could a downward departure be considered because Judge Charles Breyer felt Rosenthal genuinely believed what he was doing was not against the law?

I don't see how Ed Rosenthal could think what he was doing was, "against the law" considering he was a duly deputized officer of the City of Oakland assisting in the implementation of the city's ordinance establishing a medical marijuana program, And he had official immunity from prosecution under USC Section 885(d), which states "no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed ... upon any duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof ... who shall be lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances.

Quote:Criminals do not need another loophole, nor do our children need to be exposed to another drug dealer flaunting federal law.

He was never a drug dealer. And I don't see how outdated federal laws and misdirection of the jury could constitute a loophole.

Quote:The only reason I posted this letter was to show that total ignorance still gets publicity. Quite frankly this letter upsets me so much I am considering writing a rebuttal to the editor.

I agree with you 100% on this. I cannot believe how simple some people can be. It is good to be reminded from time to time how some people could have watched a woman burn alive at the stake because they felt that what she was doing was indecent.

Just because something is against the law doesn't mean that it is bad, or that the law is correct. Blind sheep regurgitating nonsense... all of them... -sigh-